*Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Dittrich

European Union Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Council Directive (EC) 2000-78 78 (establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation), in disputes between federal public servants and Germany concerning the reimbursement of medical expenses of their civil partners, or whether account was to be taken of such civil partners for the purposes of the assistance granted to federal public servants in the event of illness.

Moreno v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) and another

European Union Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 4 of Council Directive (EEC) 79-7 (on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security) in proceedings between Ms Moreno and the Spanish National Institute of Social Security and the General Social Security Fund in relation to entitlement to a retirement pension.

*Lloyd v BCQ Ltd

Employment Dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the employee's claims for, inter alia, a golden handshake, and money under a personal health insurance policy after his dismissal due to ill health. The claim for money in lieu of holiday pay whilst off sick was remitted to a different employment tribunal in light of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Larner v NHS Leeds[2012] All ER (D) 273 (Jul).

European Commission v Hungary

European Union Equal treatment in employment and occupation. The Court of Justice of the European Union granted the declaration sought by the European Commission that by adopting a national scheme requiring compulsory retirement of judges, prosecutors and notaries when they reached the age of 62, Hungary had failed to fulfil its obligations under arts 2 and 6(1) of Council Directive (EC) 2000-78 (establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation).

*Abdulla and others v Birmingham City Council

Employment Equality of treatment of men and women. The Supreme Court ruled that, on the true construction of the first part of of the Equal Pay Act 1970 and of the Equality Act 2010, a claim in respect of the operation of an equality clause could never be more conveniently disposed of by the tribunal if it would thereby be time-barred. If however a court concluded that instead of bringing a claim in court the claimant ought to have presented it before the tribunal in time, that might well be relevant when considering an order for costs.

*Re IBM Pension Plan

Rectification Mistake. The instant case concerned a pension scheme known as the IBM Pension Plan (the main plan), which was originally established in 1957.The claimant trust company, the trustee of the plan, sought an order rectifying a deed of amendment, which created, amongst other things, the C Plan. The principal question was whether, in creating the C Plan as a new section of the main plan in 1983, it was intended to be on terms that members of the C Plan would have a right to retire on an unreduced pension at any age between 60 and 63 without any employer consent. The Chancery Division answered in the affirmative.

Timbo v Greenwich Council for Racial Equality

Employment tribunal Striking out. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed an appeal brought by an employee against the dismissal of her claims for race and sex discrimination by an employment tribunal in circumstances where the tribunal had acceded to an application by the employer to strike out the employee's claims having heard only one side of the evidence.

Purohit v Hospira (UK) Ltd and another

Employment Practice and procedure. The employee was ordered to pay costs following an unsuccessful claim against her employer for sex and race discrimination, victimisation and sexual harassment. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the employee's appeal to require the tribunal to consider the question of means afresh where it had failed to consider the employee's witness statement to the effect that she had no savings or investments.

*Hewage v Grampian Health Board

Employment Discrimination. The Supreme Court dismissed the employer health board's appeal against the decision of the Inner House of the Court of Session upholding an employment tribunal's findings that the employee had been discriminated against on the grounds of her race and gender. It also reiterated the guidance in Igen Ltd v Wong[2005] IRLR 258 and Madarassy v Nomura International plc .

Spring v First Capital East Ltd

Employment Tribunal Procedure. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal against an order made against him at a pre-hearing review requiring him to pay a deposit of 250 as a condition of being permitted to continue to take part in the proceedings (the deposit order), held that the judge had applied the correct test as to the making of the deposit order and had been entitled to conclude, on the evidence, that the employee had little prospect of providing evidence to demonstrate that he had been dismissed by way of retirement because he had been a thorn in the employer's side.